Its been 10 years since embryonic stem cells were first isolated and the Bush administration subsequently relented to superstitious agenda and all but shelved the research that explores their potential to save lives.

Embryonic stem cells were a dime a dozen thanks to in vitro fertilization, which produces more embryos than needed. The Bush administration did what it could to block advancement in the research and technology surrounding stem cells, citing superstition and fallacious logic -they argued that surplus embryonic stem cells were better suited for the garbage disposal than saving lives (the fallacy), ostensibly because each blastocyst had its own soul (the superstition).

Now, however, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave Geron in Menlo Park, California, permission to conduct a safety test in a handful of patients with a recent spinal cord injury.

The treatment will likely not "allow patients to jump out of wheelchairs and play soccer," but it is certainly an advancement in the research necessary to work out the potential to save lives, improve quality of lives, and correct serious injuries and illnesses that would otherwise leave patients paralyzed and disabled.

Quote:

Geron will be testing oligodendrocyte progenitor cells, precursors to some nervous system cells the company developed from one of the original human embryonic stem cell lines [...] Eight to 10 patients will receive the cells a week or two after a serious spinal cord injury. The goal is not to create new nerve fibers but to support those still intact by making the nerve insulator myelin. To prevent rejection, patients will take immune-suppressing drugs for about 60 days. Although the primary goal is to assess safety, Geron will be looking for hints that the cells had an effect--for example, improving bladder and bowel function, sensation, or mobility.

There are some concerns among the scientific and medical community, but about the timeliness of the clinical trial and the worry that this test might not be a good first trial of stem cell therapy since there are some potential risks of tumors developing that are already part of some hypotheses in this type of therapy. However, most scientists agree that this is an important milestone in stem cell research and that the first "cure" demonstrated will likely demolish most opposition and superstitious-based skepticism regarding the use of stem cells.

Actually, Bush's (and those of others) objections being largely superstitious is very accurate.

This is because of the nature of the stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are more flexible since adult stem cells are already somewhat specialized -though there is the added advantage of low risk of rejection if the donor is also the recipient. But, more importantly to this point, embryonic stem cells are very plentiful since they can be harvested from the embryos (which are clearly not sentient since there is no formed brain or nervous system) of clinics which perform in vitro fertilization. These embryos, if not harvested for their stem cells are simply destroyed.

So not utilizing them for a good purpose is completely based on the superstition that, somehow, these embryos (often just blastocysts of a few hundred cells) are equivalent to fully formed humans or even a more advanced fetus. They aren't. There is no brain. There is no nervous system. They're cells and it is no more unethical to harvest their stem cells than it is to take a series of antibiotics which obliterate the bacteria in one's body.

The cells are human. That, of course is undeniable. But so, then, is my gall bladder and appendix. I'm not opposed to having them removed or discarded when necessary.

What is your source that "brainwaves are detected very early in stages of development?" I'm confident that if you go to these sources, you'll find that brainwaves are detected when there is a brain. This, of course, isn't until far beyond the stage at which embryonic stem cells are harvested.

Moreover, you, like many others who are opposed to embryonic stem cells, have yet to address why there is an objection to using blastocysts destined for disposal (i.e. never to become a people) aren't put to good use. The answer, as I've demonstrated, is superstition. Pure, unadulterated superstition.

Look I'm not superstitious, I'm religious and a baby is not the equivalent of an appendix. I value human life, and because I'm against abortion, I'd also be against this as well, because embryonic stem cells are created via abortions and there are other means to obtain these cells without destroying an embryo including from the umbilical cord.

There is an ethical issue here, it has nothing to do with superstition.

I could easily make the argument that these are equivalent terms, but this is, perhaps, for a different thread, so I'll take you at your word

Quote:

and a baby is not the equivalent of an appendix.

Nor have I said so. Nor is an embryo the equivalent of a baby. A "baby" is a infant human. An embryo is a collection of cells -a blastocyst of a few hundred cells even, which has the potential to become a fetus which, in turn, has the potential to become a baby.

An embryo is not a person by any definition of the word. It is every bit as human as an appendix or a clump of hair pulled out at the root in my comb as it has the DNA of a human. But it is not a person.

The only way to define it as a person is to invoke superstition.

Quote:

There is an ethical issue here, it has nothing to do with superstition.

It has everything to do with superstition since the only way to come to the conclusion that an embryo equivocates to a person is to invoke superstition.

And in my opinion, the instant you see brainwaves, it is a human life. Cause when do you have a soul, I'm going to go with the opinion that it is very early in human development because I'd rather be wrong on that then be wrong the other way and be responsible for the consequences of that.

And in my opinion, the instant you see brainwaves, it is a human life. Cause when do you have a soul, I'm going to go with the opinion that it is very early in human development because I'd rather be wrong on that then be wrong the other way and be responsible for the consequences of that.

This could lead into a massive debate surrounding surrounding the beginning of sentience, and eventually, the metaphysical, which can be left entirely up to philosophical and religious beliefs.

Strictly speaking, an embryo has a brain, yet whether it is actually used in a sentient way can be debated.

And I prefer to play it safe and consider it to be immoral at that point, because I'd rather be too cautious that be responsible for killing sentient beings that are human.

Not me, I'll cancel your vote any day.

The lives of those who incur spinal cord injuries and those in need of organ transplants, their families, and the health care costs are worth far more than a curette-full of cells in my book. That's real pain and suffering by real humans and they're the ones deserving of compassion. Do you mourn for the laboratory animals that are used to develop cancer treatments? Because they are far more evolved and conscious of pain than any embryo.

Edit: sorry I should've said blastocyst instead of embryo to emphasize the fact that these are undifferentiated cells ... in other words: no brain has developed

And in my opinion, the instant you see brainwaves, it is a human life. Cause when do you have a soul, I'm going to go with the opinion that it is very early in human development because I'd rather be wrong on that then be wrong the other way and be responsible for the consequences of that.

Other than the "soul" comment (there is, apparently, no such thing. If so, please cite the scientific literature and the Nobel prize winner that reveals it), this is something I can agree with.

Since there are no brainwaves in a blastocyst, then we can agree that embryonic stem cell research is not only appropriate but ethical.

This, by the way, is a blastocyst.

The green cells in the middle are the pluripotent stem cells and necessarily have the potential to divide and become any cell in the body. This is at a stage of perhaps 24-30 hours of development. Not the many weeks required to even notice the first hints of brain development.

These tiny, tiny balls of cells have less intelligence and sentience than bacteria.

And in my opinion, the instant you see brainwaves, it is a human life.

Good thing there's no brain in embryos, then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garfy

Cause when do you have a soul, I'm going to go with the opinion that it is very early in human development because I'd rather be wrong on that then be wrong the other way and be responsible for the consequences of that.

Actually they have a brain, as PastramiX also stated. You can't have brainwave signals without a brain, and embryos do give off brainwave signals.

The main problem with your statement here is that it is completely uninformed and wrong.

Brain development doesn't occur to anything functional until about 4-5 weeks and doesn't present gyri and sulci until about 7 months (Kolb & Whishaw 2008: 657). Embryonic stem cells are harvested at the blastocyst stage while their at there most pluripotent potential (Reubinoff et al 2000).

There is are no brainwaves for the embryos being harvested at the blastocyst stage.

References:

Kolb, Brian and Ian Whishaw (2008). Fundamentals of Human Neuropsychology. Macmillan: New York

Problem with your argument is that they can use a person's own skin cells to rebuild organs and spinal cords. So if you can do these things without using embryonic stem cells why use embryonic stem cells when you can use something else without the moral issue.

Problem with your argument is that they can use a person's own skin cells to rebuild organs and spinal cords. So if you can do these things without using embryonic stem cells why use embryonic stem cells when you can use something else without the moral issue.

The problem with this is that a person's own adult stem cells are multipotent and not pluripotent, meaning the latter can develop into any kind of cell. In addition, the ability to "rebuild organs and spinal chords" is an example of the type of research that has essentially been obstructed to the point that lives that could be saved are not -what's needed are the more pluripotent embryonic stem cells over the multipotent adult stem cells.

Admittedly, stem cells harvested from the recipient have the distinct advantage of being less prone to rejection, however, they're also less likely to develop into the specific cells you need, making research more costly, difficult, and restricted.

Again, there are embryos that will be destroyed -dropped, literally, in the garbage, which can be used for good purposes. These are blastocysts of a few hundred cells at most with no brain, no nervous system, and, thus, no brainwaves. They're less intelligent than the bacteria growing in my intestine.

The problem with this is that a person's own adult stem cells are multipotent and not pluripotent, meaning the latter can develop into any kind of cell. In addition, the ability to "rebuild organs and spinal chords" is an example of the type of research that has essentially been obstructed to the point that lives that could be saved are not -what's needed are the more pluripotent embryonic stem cells over the multipotent adult stem cells.

A problem with that argument is that they have developed a way to use the stem cells found on the umbilical cord from birth, they have the same properties as those found in an embryo, but you are not terminating life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Admittedly, stem cells harvested from the recipient have the distinct advantage of being less prone to rejection, however, they're also less likely to develop into the specific cells you need, making research more costly, difficult, and restricted.

Again that depends, there have been significant advances in using adult stem cells, there are also other sources of stem cells with similar properties as embryonic stem cells as I mentioned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Again, there are embryos that will be destroyed -dropped, literally, in the garbage, which can be used for good purposes. These are blastocysts of a few hundred cells at most with no brain, no nervous system, and, thus, no brainwaves. They're less intelligent than the bacteria growing in my intestine.

Am against abortions, fertility clinics, and embryonic stem cell research, if we didn't have the first two in play this ethical mess wouldn't be there in the first place.

Question is how are you getting these embryos, are you creating them only to destroy them?

A problem with that argument is that they have developed a way to use the stem cells found on the umbilical cord from birth, they have the same properties as those found in an embryo, but you are not terminating life.

Please, cite a citation to a primary source that not only explains this but shows how its more effective than simply using the embryonic stem cells found in blastocysts that aren't even fetal yet (and thus not people), which are destined to be disposed of.

Quote:

Again that depends, there have been significant advances in using adult stem cells, there are also other sources of stem cells with similar properties as embryonic stem cells as I mentioned.

The latter point is uninformed and incorrect. The former point is true, which I've already indicated. However, these advances are limited and not significant enough when it comes to the pluripotency of embryonic stem cells. Adult stem cells are multipotent and not pluripotent to the degree that embryonic are.

Quote:

Am against abortions, fertility clinics, and embryonic stem cell research, if we didn't have the first two in play this ethical mess wouldn't be there in the first place.

Then I suggest you not use their services. Many individuals, couples and families enjoy a better quality of life because abortions are possible, fertility clinics available, and stem cell research viable. If it violates you personal opinion, don't utilize their services. Imposing your opinion on others must, necessarily invoke superstitious arguments which are completely irrational as I've demonstrated quite successfully here.

Quote:

Question is how are you getting these embryos, are you creating them only to destroy them?

No. Embryonic stem cell lines are obtained from various sources which are creating embryos for other purposes, primarily in vitro fertilization where a couple unable for various reasons to create viable embryos through copulation can have the fertilization process done in the controlled setting of a laboratory and the egg then implanted in the woman's uterus. The process of fertilization creates more embryos than needed and, rather than destroy the unused embryos (blastocysts of only a few dozen to a few hundred cells), the idea is to use them for their stem cells.

Its important to note that this fertilization process, while it is in a laboratory setting, is almost the same as what occurs in the human body. Through sex, a woman can often have multiple eggs fertilized at the same time, but only one survives. Sometimes none survive. There is no brain development at the blastocyst level. There is no nerve function. The human blastocyst from which stem cells are derived is no more intelligent than the bacteria between your toes thriving in your colon. Sentience is not possible without a brain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

I just stated I'm against fertility clinics as well, there are a lot of children that aren't wanted that need homes.

This is an argument from ignorance. Fertility clinics provide a service to couples that would like to have their own children. Children which have 23 chromosomes from dad; 23 from mom. Not 46 from strangers. Surely you can see the benefit. If not, again, there is a simple solution: don't use the services of a fertility clinic.

When I say "intelligent" I'm referring to their behavior and evolved characteristics, which when compared to the blastocyst are significant. The blastocyst, however, has far more potential than any bacterium or entire culture of bacteria ever will, but this is a matter of DNA nothing else.

Still, it appears that my off-the-cuff remark has given you an easy way to avoid the other problems with your argument.

When I say "intelligent" I'm referring to their behavior and evolved characteristics, which when compared to the blastocyst are significant. The blastocyst, however, has far more potential than any bacterium or entire culture of bacteria ever will, but this is a matter of DNA nothing else.

Still, it appears that my off-the-cuff remark has given you an easy way to avoid the other problems with your argument.

By your argument should we kill people that are unable to move their limbs due to a spinal injury. At the stage we're talking about there is an enormous amount cellular growth taking place, all the energy taken in, is being used. That hardly means that a bacterium has more "intelligence" it's just the energy usage is such that there is none left over.

By your argument should we kill people that are unable to move their limbs due to a spinal injury.

I highly doubt that anyone would agree by looking at my words in this thread that this is actually my argument. Please quote the statement I've made saying this.

Please also acknowledge that we agree that it is both ethical and appropriate to utilize embryonic stem cells for research and, ultimately, medicine (which saves the lives of the very people injured above you fallaciously and inappropriately accuse me of arguing the murder for). This is because:

We both agree that brainwaves are a sign of personhood.

Embryonic stem cells come from blastocysts.

Blastocysts have no brains.

The lack of a brain is indicative of no brainwaves.

Brainwaves have never been reported as detected in a blastocyst (again -no brain).

Thus, the use of embryonic stem cells for research and medicine is appropriate and ethical.

That, my friend, is how to construct a logical argument where the premises end in a conclusion.

I highly doubt that anyone would agree by looking at my words in this thread that this is actually my argument. Please quote the statement I've made saying this.

Nerve development begins extremely early in development, unless you're saying they are creating these whatever want to call them in a test tube which makes it even more unethical. We're talking about stages in development that there are brain waves, and that is extremely early in development.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinWalker

Please also acknowledge that we agree that it is both ethical and appropriate to utilize embryonic stem cells for research and, ultimately, medicine (which saves the lives of the very people injured above you fallaciously and inappropriately accuse me of arguing the murder for). This is because:

We both agree that brainwaves are a sign of personhood.

Embryonic stem cells come from blastocysts.

Blastocysts have no brains.

The lack of a brain is indicative of no brainwaves.

Brainwaves have never been reported as detected in a blastocyst (again -no brain).

Thus, the use of embryonic stem cells for research and medicine is appropriate and ethical.

And again I'm going to say I don't think it is remotely ethical to create life in order to destroy it in such a fashion. It is devaluing human life and making it a commodity, it isn't needed because you can get cells with the same properties without messing with Embryonic Stem Cells which are called Embryonic for a reason.

That's something the Catholic Church has gotten right, because if we didn't allow fertility clinics, abortions, etc. we wouldn't be having this ethical argument.

Nerve development begins extremely early in development, unless you're saying they are creating these whatever want to call them in a test tube which makes it even more unethical. We're talking about stages in development that there are brain waves, and that is extremely early in development.

You're wrong. Again. We're not talking about stages in development where brain waves are present. We're talking about the first few hours of development where the embryo is just a blastocyst. See the illustration and citations above.

I knew stem cell research was important and useful, but it never really occurred to me that they were using embryos that'd otherwise be lost. Further strengthens my stance that the opposition to these procedures is ridiculous.

Quote:

And again I'm going to say I don't think it is remotely ethical to create life in order to destroy it in such a fashion.

Let's try to be realistic for a second here. Embryos are sometimes, just like in the human body, created and then destroyed. Given that this happens, doesn't it make more sense to use them to save lives than to throw them in the trash?

You can't say that you're against this stance because you'd rather in-vitro fertilization didn't happen, because in reality it does. It's just as with golf, really, you gotta play the ball as it lies.

I'm against donor children myself as it raises a whole lot of ethical issues, even more so than adoption... but it happens, and as long as it does, I'm for using embryos to save real, living human lives.

This sounds like one of those debates on abortion and contraception in which certain religious people cling to the notion that abstinence-only sex ed and abortion bans are the best way to reduce teen sex - even though all objective studies have found that this is approach has a disastrous track record.

Quote:

I'ts still playing God

Define 'playing God'. I'm asking because this is an expression I really do not understand. Is the rest of medical science 'playing God', too? After all, we've lengthened life expectancy from the 'natural' 30 or so years (or was it even shorter than that before the Egyptians?) to a good 80+. We fly without wings. We make 'dead' people come to life with defibrillators.

Why aren't any of these things 'playing God', and what's wrong with 'playing God' in the first place?

There are some things that I don't think humans should meddle with...yet. Stem Cell research was one of them. I have mixed feelings about it though. If the cells are there, they aren't being used and could possibly go to waste, do it.

Sometimes you have to make sacrifices. This will probably sound horrible to you Garfield(and I don't mean it to), but you could think of the cells as little martyrs.

More like infantcide being sanctioned, this is why I'm against fertility clinics, abortions, etc.

Human life shouldn't be a commercial object, which is what this is doing.

Some of the conditions they are saying this research will fix is a load of garbage, I highly doubt they can fix conditions which are genetic in nature (despite what abortion advocates claim). That includes diabetes, because it is caused by genetics.

With all due respect sir, you do not know the first thing about my illness. If I had about 25,000 USD on hand, I would hop on a plane to Japan to receive stem cell therapy to stimulate the growing off islet cells in my pancreas, causing my body to produce insulin on its own accord once again. It truly works and many diabetics have undergone such experimental procedures.

I was not born with diabetes and is relatively rare for that to actually happen. The vast majority of diabetics are diagnosed just before puberty (I was 14). Type 1 Diabetes is an autoimmunal disease caused by the body destroying islet cells in the pancreas. Stem cells can cause these cells to regenerate, but there is no guarantee that another autoimmunal reaction will destroy them once again. However most diabetics reach upwards of 15 years before having to undergo the therapy once more. The sheer amount of money saved, pork taken out of the healthcare system, and lives extended and saved makes this breakthrough well worth it. Stem cells do not have to come from abortions and believing and telling others that they do is highly unethical, I dare say even immoral.

So when you say

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

I highly doubt they can fix conditions which are genetic in nature ....that includes diabetes, because it is caused by genetics.

(ellipsis is my addition for a concise quote)

You must mean "I really have no idea what I am speaking about and am merely making the rounds between Kavar's Corner and the Senate to spout my usual spiel to anyone that will listen"

With all due respect sir, you do not know the first thing about my illness. If I had about 25,000 USD on hand, I would hop on a plane to Japan to receive stem cell therapy to stimulate the growing off islet cells in my pancreas, causing my body to produce insulin on its own accord once again. It truly works and many diabetics have undergone such experimental procedures.

Some diabetes are genetic in nature or there genetically there is a heightened risk for it. Yours sounds different in nature to some of the others I've heard of. What I was referring to overall is the advertising that it's a cure-all which it isn't. Such as saying it will cure Down Syndrome which is a load of garbage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoxStar

I was not born with diabetes and is relatively rare for that to actually happen. The vast majority of diabetics are diagnosed just before puberty (I was 14). Type 1 Diabetes is an autoimmunal disease caused by the body destroying islet cells in the pancreas. Stem cells can cause these cells to regenerate, but there is no guarantee that another autoimmunal reaction will destroy them once again. However most diabetics reach upwards of 15 years before having to undergo the therapy once more. The sheer amount of money saved, pork taken out of the healthcare system, and lives extended and saved makes this breakthrough well worth it. Stem cells do not have to come from abortions and believing and telling others that they do is highly unethical, I dare say even immoral.

Well here's the thing the only stem cells President Bush was denying funding for research on was from abortion clinics and fertility clinics, the adult stem cells were perfectly acceptable, as were stem cells from the umbillical cord of a newborn.

The reason that that treatment hasn't been approved in the US could include the fact that they don't know the side effects. From some sources I've heard that one could be looking at an increased risk of Cancer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RoxStar

You must mean "I really have no idea what I am speaking about and am merely making the rounds between Kavar's Corner and the Senate to spout my usual spiel to anyone that will listen"

I know more about the topic than you think... I realize I haven't had a lot of sleep here recently.

Btw, if you would like me to ellaborate on something or counter a particular argument I've made do so, don't personally attack me in a Juvenile manner.

I'm glad that we can actually make use of the stockpile of embryos now. (Not opening a moral debate on that, you don't have to be pro-life to know that it was an absolute waste to have such a resource blocked off)

Depends, I don't think the tumors show up as often if it is the skin cells of the person you intend to use the stem cells on. You can gather cells with the same properties as embryonic stem cells from another source though which is a leftover from the birthing process.

False. You have no empirical evidence to claim that they don't "show up as often." The reason that these induced pluripotent stem cells aren't used is due to the causal relationship they have with tumors - tumors which present irrespective of who they're being used on.

I got something to contribute:
talked to some people and they use the slippery slope arguemnt aginst stem cell research. The biggest fear, they clain, is that if they start using blastocysts, thay will have less respect for life, and move on to terminating bigger things.

If I recall, the scientific community has never said it would be a cure-all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Some diabetes are genetic in nature or there genetically there is a heightened risk for it. Yours sounds different in nature to some of the others I've heard of. What I was referring to overall is the advertising that it's a cure-all which it isn't. Such as saying it will cure Down Syndrome which is a load of garbage.

Source for "I've heard about".

Source for "Advertising it's a cure-all".

Source for "cure Down Syndrome".

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Well here's the thing the only stem cells President Bush was denying funding for research on was from abortion clinics and fertility clinics, the adult stem cells were perfectly acceptable, as were stem cells from the umbillical cord of a newborn.

So, the fact they throw away and don't use stem cells from fertility clinics every day doesn't matter?

Either way, the cells are going to die. It is just if they are used to save someone, or put into a trash can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

The reason that that treatment hasn't been approved in the US could include the fact that they don't know the side effects. From some sources I've heard that one could be looking at an increased risk of Cancer.

Source for "treatment hasn't been approved in the US could include the fact they don't know side effects".

Sources for "increased risk of cancer".

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

I know more about the topic than you think... I realize I haven't had a lot of sleep here recently.

Care to back that up? So far you've called pro-choice infant murderers and made speculation on "sources" you did not source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Some of the conditions they are saying this research will fix is a load of garbage, I highly doubt they can fix conditions which are genetic in nature (despite what abortion advocates claim). That includes diabetes, because it is caused by genetics.

I believe you have to be an infant to be classified under infanticide. Not a collection of brainless, blank slate cells.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

this is why I'm against fertility clinics, abortions, etc

So, if a woman is about to die along with her baby because of a womb problem and the only way to save the mother is to abort, you are for both of them dying instead?

If someone is raped at 13 and becomes pregnant, they are murders for aborting?

If a couple is having trouble conceiving or cannot without help, going to a fertility clinic is evil?

Other than an incredibly selfish superstition, why are you against them? And no, "I don't like killing babies" is not an answer, because only psychopaths like killing babies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GarfieldJL

Human life shouldn't be a commercial object, which is what this is doing.

And how do you define human life?

A pile of blank slate cells do not think. They are as relevant as the cells in your bone marrow.

They do not know what to be yet. They have the -possibility- to become a baby, but they also have the possibility to become any other cell in your body.

Its like banning the use of legos because you could make legos look like a baby, when at the same time you could use them to make hundreds of other things.

Thing is, you are so concentrated around the fact you think these are fetus'...

They aren't. They are purer and more malleable versions of the same cells found in adults.

That. Not this:

One has a brain, the other does not even have brain cells. One is a pile of blank slate cells, the other is a collection of various determined cells. One feels pain, the other does not.

Life isn't precious. If it was, your god wouldn't of rained hell and killed thousands of people in his early days. Were there babies? Pregnant women? Children? For a book that seems to call life precious, those in it weren't above killing thousands to further the teachings. And, being that you are christian, I am going to assume your philosophy that life is precious starts with your faith.

Which, in reality, would only be relevant if the stem cells were living humans instead of a collection of blank cells. It is relevant, however, on the basis of the origins of your superstition.

Or does living life not matter? I seem to also recall that you support Israel's fighting Hamas. Our fight in the Middle East. Even torturing people.

Where does the line on life cross with you exactly? Do you require them to be born, and then forget about them until they do something bad?